[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Santosh Kumar Chakravarti on 12 January, 2026
1 CR-1194-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 12th OF JANUARY, 2026
CIVIL REVISION No. 1194 of 2025
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
SANTOSH KUMAR CHAKRAVARTI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shreyash Pandit - Advocate for petitioner.
ORDER
There is a delay of 129 days in filing of this revision. The reason
assigned is that time was taken on account of procedural formalities for
getting permission to file this revision.
On due consideration, the application (I.A. No.24469/2025) is
allowed. Delay of 129 days in filing this revision is condoned.
The present revision has been filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the award dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Claims Tribunal,
whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.32,856/- to the
claimants-respondents.
2. The present revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against
the award of Claims Tribunal pressing sole ground that after amendment in
the Motor Vehicles Act as per amended Section 166(3), there is a limitation
of six months to file application for claim from the date of accident and in
the present case the accident had taken place on 14.06.2022 whereas the
2 CR-1194-2025
claim application was filed on 12.01.2023 and in this manner the claim
application was time barred by 28 days. It is contended that there is no
provision for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition and therefore,
the claim petition could not have been entertained on merits. It is further
contended that the legal issue is already pending consideration before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the claims Tribunal ought not to have passed the
impugned award.
3. It is contended that the Claims Tribunal after amendment in the Motor
Vehicles Act could not have been entertained the claim petition because the
delay of 28 days is fatal and should not have been condoned by the Tribunal.
4. When this Court confronted the petitioner with the query that the award
in this case is of a very low quantum and the litigation expenses of this case
alone may be almost equal to the awarded amount for the petitioner itself
apart from the litigation cost to be borne by the respondents in case this
revision is entertained, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the
issue raised is in larger interest and of larger importance, therefore,
irrespective of quantum of compensation in this particular case, the
Insurance Company has decided to challenge it.
5. The legislature has given the remedy of appeal under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act against awards of Claims Tribunal and as per Section
173(2), appeal against an award of Tribunal is barred if the amount in dispute
is less than Rs.10,000/- which has been enhanced to Rs.1.00 Lakh by the
Amendment Act.
6. The question that whether once the legislature has refused to allow
3 CR-1194-2025
appeal for awards below Rs.1.00 Lakh, the Insurance Company or any other
person can file revision against the award, was considered by a Special
Bench of five-Judges of High Court in the case of National Insurance
Company v. Shrikant Vinod Tiwari and others , 2007 (2) J.L.J. 138 . At that
relevant point of time, the threshold limit was Rs.10,000/- and the Special
Bench came to conclusion that a party cannot be left remediless and since
revision is not barred under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, therefore, the
revision would lie under Section 115 CPC, though on limited grounds. The
Special Bench held as under:-
"18. We may further reiterate that for examining the correctness of the award,
scope of Section 115 CPC is limited and the award passed will not be disturbed
unless following grounds are made out by the petitioner:
(i) the award so passed is without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction
vested with the Tribunal.
(ii) the award so passed, if allowed to stand would occasion in failure of justice
or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.
Some illustrations wherein the cases under these categories can be examined
are as under:
(i) award where insurance policy has not been issued by the Insurance
Company.
(ii) Tribunal has recorded a finding that injuries received by the Claimant are
not caused during the use or arising out of use of motor vehicle yet
compensation is awarded.
(iii) Where owner of the vehicle feels that Insurance Company has been
improperly exonerated from payment of compensation.
(iv) Claimant may claim the amount of compensation such as loss of suffering
or medical treatment which has not been awarded by the Claims Tribunal
though sufficient evidence is available on record."
7. The Special Bench held that revision would not lie at the drop of a hat in
routine matter but would lie only in special circumstances. This may be
4 CR-1194-2025
when the award is without jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction, would
occasion any failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the aggrieved
party, where the insurance policy was not issued by the Insurance Company,
when despite finding that the injuries are not relatable to the motor vehicle
yet compensation is awarded, where the owner has been cast upon liability
by exonerating the Insurance Company or where the claimant may claim the
quantum to be at lower side.
8. The Special Bench did not grant any liberty to the Insurance Company
to file revisions as a matter of course in place of appeal which has been
specifically barred by the Legislature. No doubt, the contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner Insurance Company has substance that since the
legal issue is involved in the matter of interpretation of amended Section
166(3) of the Act of 1988, therefore, the Insurance Company has filed
revision. This ground would have impressed this Court only if it was the
only case in which this legal issue had arisen and was required to be decided
by this Court only. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company was not
in a position to dispute that a number of appeals have been filed before this
Court in the matter of interpretation of Section 166(3) and number of
litigations are pending in that matter not only before this High Court but
before other High Courts, and also before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and,
therefore, it was not a case where if the award went unchallenged, the legal
issue would have been settled against the Insurance Company. Nor it is a
case where to get the legal issue settled, it was obligatory for the Company
to have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court in which case it
could have been said in terms of paragraph 18(ii) of judgment of the Special
5 CR-1194-2025
Bench that the award would cause failure of justice or irreversible injury to
the party against whom it has been made. It is not even a case of fraud, or of
false implication, where the award if unchallenged, can be said to occasion
failure of justice.
9. The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently in the case of Nirbhai
Singh and another vs. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Singh and others, reported
i n 2025 SCC OnLine P & H 12450 has heavily deprecated the practice of
filing revisions or petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
while holding that when statutory provisions prohibit filing of the statutory
appeal, affected party cannot be permitted to circumvent statutory provisions
of law by invoking the power of superintendence and accordingly the
revision petition was held to be not maintainable. The Punjab and Haryana
High Court held as under:-
"3. Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as
'the MV Act') stood amended w.e.f. 01.04.2022 and reads as under:
"(2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount
in dispute in the appeal is less than one lakh rupees."
4. A perusal of the above would show that the amount "ten thousand" rupees
has been replaced by the amount "one lakh" and admittedly the amount of
compensation awarded in the present case is less than one lakh rupees.
5. In the case of Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sahab
Singh & Ors. [CR-6131-2016 decided on 19.09.2016], a Coordinate Bench of
this Court had observed that the plain and simple reading of sub-section 2 of
Section 173 of the MV Act prohibits any person from challenging the award if
the amount of compensation is less than the amount mentioned in the said
provision. It was further observed that once statutory provisions prohibit the
filing of the statutory appeal, the affected party cannot be permitted to
circumvent the statutory provisions of law by invoking the power of
superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and accordingly
the revision petition was held to be not maintainable."
10. In view of the aforesaid legal position as discussed by this Court
6 CR-1194-2025
above, it is clear that though the statutory mandate bars any challenge to the
award which is less than Rs.1.00 Lakh, but since it has been held by a
Special Bench of this Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited
(supra) that in certain circumstances revision can lie and this Court has
already reached a conclusion above that in the present case though a legal
question of larger importance does arise, but since that question has already
been raised in a number of matters before this Court and other High Courts
and before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, therefore, it was not a case
where despite small quantum being involved in the matter, any irreparable
loss would have been caused to the Insurance Company by not challenging
the award. The quantum in the present case is so less that the total cost of
litigation of this revision may be equal, if not more than the amount of award
which will be incurred by the Insurance Company alone and taking into
consideration the litigation cost to be incurred by the opposite party, the total
litigation cost in the present case would far surpass the financial value of the
award.
11. Therefore, this Court declines to entertain the present revision by
leaving the legal issues open which have already been raised by the
Insurance Company in various other cases. It is made clear that this revision
is being dismissed as not maintainable and this order would not be construed
to have adjudicated upon the legal issue raised upon by the Insurance
Company, which would remain open in all the other cases to be raised by the
petitioner Insurance Company. It is further observed that in case the
claimants file any appeal or petition for enhancement of amount, then the
Insurance Company would have a right to get this revision restored.
7 CR-1194-2025
12. With the aforesaid observations, admission is declined. The Revision is
dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
psm
